Eyewitness Consistency is Key in Upholding Murder Convictions," Rules Rajasthan High Court State Cannot Take the Defence of Adverse Possession Against an Individual, Rules MP High Court in Land Encroachment Case Ignoring Crucial Evidence is an Illegal Approach: P&H High Court in Remanding Ancestral Property Dispute for Fresh Appraisal A Litigant Should Not Suffer for the Mistakes of Their Advocate: Madras High Court Overturns Rejection of Plaint in Specific Performance Suit 20% Interim Compensation is Not Optional in Cheque Bounce Appeals, Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court Presumption of Innocence Fortified by Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Verdict in Accident Case Absence of Fitness Certificate Invalidates Insurance Claim, Rules MP High Court: Statutory Requirement Can't Be Ignored Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Protection for Live-In Couple Amidst Pending Divorce Proceedings Reassessment Must Be Based on New Tangible Material: Delhi High Court Quashes IT Proceedings Against Samsung India Kerala High Court Denies Bail to Police Officer Accused of Raping 14-Year-Old: 'Grave Offences Demand Strict Standards' Repeated Writ Petitions Unacceptable: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Land Acquisition Challenge Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Reassessment Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers in Light of Faceless Assessment Scheme Adverse Possession Claims Fail Without Proof of Hostile Possession: Madras High Court Temple's Ancient Land Rights Upheld: Kerala High Court Rejects Adverse Possession Claims Expulsion Must Be Exercised in Good Faith — Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Adjudication in Partnership Dispute Instigation Requires Reasonable Certainty to Incite the Consequence: Delhi High Court in Suicide Case

Legal Services by Lawyers Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Acts Due to Their Duty-Bound Nature” – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that legal services provided by lawyers are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its 2019 iteration. This decision emphasizes the unique, duty-bound nature of the legal profession which is integral to the administration of justice.

The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the services rendered by lawyers could be classified under the ‘service’ category as defined by the Consumer Protection Acts of 1986 and 2019, thereby subjecting lawyers to the provisions of these acts concerning ‘deficiency in service’. The apex court, presided over by Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, has categorically ruled out such an inclusion.

The matter arose from several appeals led by the Bar of Indian Lawyers against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) earlier decision, which had held that complaints of deficiency in service against advocates could be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act.

Nature of Legal Services: The court highlighted that legal services are not merely commercial but are crucial to the justice delivery system, involving duties to the court, the client, and the broader judicial framework.

Legislative Intent and Interpretation: Delving deep into the legislative history and intent behind the Consumer Protection Acts, the court observed that the primary objective was to shield consumers from unfair trade practices in commercial scenarios, not professional services.

Comparative Jurisprudence: The judgment also touched upon international practices in countries like Malaysia, the European Union, Canada, the USA, and Australia, noting a common approach to exempt professional services, including legal, from the ambit of consumer protection laws.

Legal Profession’s Distinctiveness: It was further emphasized that the legal profession, regulated under the Advocates Act, 1961, stands unique among other professions due to its integral role in upholding justice and democracy.

Decision: Concluding its extensive analysis, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the NCDRC. It was held that complaints alleging deficiency in service against advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, categorizing legal services under ‘contract of personal service’ which are excluded from the act.

Date of Decision: 14th May 2024.

Bar of Indian Lawyers Through Its President Jasbir Singh Malik vs. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases and Anr.

Similar News